A man accused of committing fraud to the tune of N$4.234 million applied for a Section 174 discharge yesterday before Windhoek High Court Judge Herman January. 

Morne du Plessis (40) claims there is no evidence before the court to sustain the charges of fraud, alternatively theft and theft by false pretences, as well as money laundering. 

The State alleges that Du Plessis and Nico Kisting entered a verbal agreement that Du Plessis would supply Kisting with 1 835 000 exercise books he had to deliver to the Central Government Stores for a tender he had won. It is further stated that Du Plessis misrepresented to Kisting that he had reliable suppliers in China and he had the capacity to source the books and supply them on time. 

However, it is stated, upon receiving the N$4.2 million, the accused converted the whole amount to his own use without delivering any stationery to the complainant. 

Du Plessis told the court he had no criminal intent when he used funds eposited into the account of his company – Extreme Stationery – to pay for 1 835 000 exercise books ordered from China. 

His lawyer, advocate James Diedericks, instructed by Boris Isaacks, told the judge the evidence of the complainant – Kisting – was, in material part, of such poor quality and replete with inherent contradictions that it ought to be rejected. 

Absent that evidence, he said, nothing remains of the alleged misrepresentations. 

Further, Diedericks argued, nothing comes from the evidence of the State witnesses, and no reasonable court acting carefully would convict on such scanty evidence. In fact, he said, the evidence is clear the orders of the complainant expired by the time he obtained funding from the Development Bank of Namibia, as he had no money to pay for the books on time. This, he said, resulted in the order being put on hold. 

The alleged misrepresentation is, in any event, on common cause, an absurdity because without knowledge as to quantity and delivery time, there could be no misrepresentation as to capacity. He further said on the charge of money laundering there is simply no shred of evidence, and in any event the threshold standard (proceeds of unlawful activities) is debunked by the State’s own evidence that the source of the funds was a loan from the DBN, paid to Du Plessis on the written instructions of Kisting. 

State advocate Erich Moyo opposed the discharge application, saying the State adduced sufficient evidence to put Du Plessis on his defence. According to Moyo, it is enough for the state to establish a prima facie case. 

The judge reserved ruling on the discharge application until 30 June at 10h00. 

-rrouth@nepc.com.na